Teaching & Learning
- Students are instructed to follow each instructor’s syllabus policy, and the guidance warns that submitting unedited chatbot-produced work constitutes academic misconduct
- The university states it does not have a specific university-wide policy on students’ use of generative AI in teaching and learning, and indicates that course policies vary by instructor
The University of Kansas does not have a specific policy about use of generative artificial intelligence in teaching and learning.
Some instructors have integrated generative AI into assignments, while others have restricted the use of generative AI or banned it from classes. Because of these differing policies, be sure you understand the guidelines in each of your classes. Check the syllabus and ask your instructor for clarification, if needed.
If your instructor allows you to use generative AI in assignments, use the output as a starting point for editing, analysis, and additional research and writing. Turning in unedited work created by a chatbot is academic misconduct.
- The policy position on AI use during exams is not defined in the provided AI guidance pages
- The provided sources include general academic misconduct language about unauthorized aid on examinations, but they do not define a specific generative-AI rule for exams or assessments
Academic misconduct by a student shall include, but not be limited to, disruption of classes; threatening an instructor or fellow student in an academic setting; giving or receiving of unauthorized aid on examinations or in the preparation of notebooks, themes, reports or other assignments; knowingly misrepresenting the source of any academic work; unauthorized changing of grades; unauthorized use of University approvals or forging of signatures; falsification of research results; plagiarizing of another's work; violation of regulations or ethical codes for the treatment of human and animal subjects; or otherwise acting dishonestly in research.
- It cautions students not to use AI to replace critical thinking and effort, framing AI as supplemental rather than a substitute for students’ own work
- The university’s student guidance describes generative AI as potentially beneficial for learning support such as explanations, examples, and practice problems
Generative AI can enhance learning and help you understand complex topics by providing explanations, examples, and even generating practice problems.
The biggest concern, as mentioned earlier, is using generative AI to replace your critical thinking and effort rather than using it as a supplemental tool to improve your efficiency and effectiveness. You should AI to improve your academic work, not do your academic work for you.
- Instead, it emphasizes that each class may have different instructor guidelines and directs students to the syllabus for course rules
- The university’s student guidance acknowledges that generative AI tools can help with coding, but it does not provide a university-wide rule specifically governing AI code generation for programming assignments
Now, generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini offer potential help with writing, editing, coding, problem-solving, and the creation of images and music.
Like you, your instructors are still trying to figure out how, when and whether to use generative AI. That means each class may have a different policy.
Research
- University guidance says users should disclose when research content (including analysis, figures, and proofs) has been created using generative AI tools
- It also notes that users are generally not expected to acknowledge generative AI use for certain assistance tasks (such as grammatical editing and boilerplate language), provided the user reviews the content before use and attribution is not otherwise required or prohibited
Users should clearly disclose when research content (e.g., analysis, figures, proofs) has been created using GenAI tools (e.g., labeling or citing figures).
Users are generally not expected to acknowledge the use of GenAI tools for assistance with tasks such as grammatical editing website copy, and generation of boilerplate language for letters, so long as users review content before use, and such attribution is not required, and use of GenAI tools is not otherwise prohibited.
- It also warns that sharing unpublished research results or findings with generative AI tools could affect the university’s ability to pursue intellectual property rights
- The university indicates generative AI can be used for research-related content and that disclosure is expected when research content such as analysis is created using generative AI tools
Users should clearly disclose when research content (e.g., analysis, figures, proofs) has been created using GenAI tools (e.g., labeling or citing figures).
Users should keep in mind that disclosing unpublished research results or findings to such tools could affect the University’s ability to pursue intellectual property rights.
- It also states that users performing research should follow applicable external rules (such as publishers, conferences, agencies, and professional organizations) when using generative AI tools
- The university states that generative AI tool use is subject to existing university policies and that users must not use generative AI tools for illegal, discriminatory, or defamatory purposes or for malware/spam
The use of GenAI tools is subject to University policies, standards, procedures, guidelines, regulations, faculty, staff, and student manuals, and codes of conduct. GenAI tools must not be used by Users for illegal, discriminatory, or defamatory purposes.
Users must not use GenAI tools for malware or spam purposes.
Users performing research should follow applicable rules including but not limited to publishers, conferences, agencies, and professional organizations when using GenAI tools
Academic Integrity
- The university guidance recommends disclosure when research content has been created using generative AI tools
- For teaching and learning, it directs students to comply with their instructor’s generative AI syllabus policy, and it frames submission of unedited chatbot-created work as academic misconduct
Students should ensure their use of GenAI tools in coursework complies with their instructor’s GenAI policy in their syllabus.
Users should clearly disclose when research content (e.g., analysis, figures, proofs) has been created using GenAI tools (e.g., labeling or citing figures).
Turning in unedited work created by a chatbot is academic misconduct.
- AI detection tools and AI-specific penalties/procedures are not defined in the provided materials
- The provided sources define academic misconduct broadly (including misrepresenting the source of academic work and unauthorized aid), but they do not define an AI-specific detection approach or enforcement mechanism (e.g., use of AI detectors) for generative AI
Academic misconduct by a student shall include, but not be limited to, disruption of classes; threatening an instructor or fellow student in an academic setting; giving or receiving of unauthorized aid on examinations or in the preparation of notebooks, themes, reports or other assignments; knowingly misrepresenting the source of any academic work; unauthorized changing of grades; unauthorized use of University approvals or forging of signatures; falsification of research results; plagiarizing of another's work; violation of regulations or ethical codes for the treatment of human and animal subjects; or otherwise acting dishonestly in research.
Institutional & Administrative
- The university guidance states that generative AI tools are subject to university policies and that users are responsible for verifying the accuracy of content created by generative AI tools
- It also states that users are generally not expected to acknowledge generative AI use for tasks such as generating boilerplate language for letters, as long as users review the content before use and attribution is not otherwise required or prohibited
The use of GenAI tools is subject to University policies, standards, procedures, guidelines, regulations, faculty, staff, and student manuals, and codes of conduct.
Users are responsible for verifying the accuracy of any content created by a GenAI tool.
Users are generally not expected to acknowledge the use of GenAI tools for assistance with tasks such as grammatical editing website copy, and generation of boilerplate language for letters, so long as users review content before use, and such attribution is not required, and use of GenAI tools is not otherwise prohibited.
- KU IT lists approved AI tools and states that KU IT and Procurement teams review AI tools to establish guidelines for use for students, faculty, staff, and researchers
- The university guidance also states AI tools should be used in accordance with applicable data protection laws and existing university policy, including FERPA and HIPAA
- It instructs users to be logged in with university credentials if entering sensitive data into an approved AI tool, and states that Microsoft Copilot is the approved generative AI tool for use across campus but should not be used with highly sensitive data (including CUI)
At KU, we leverage AI technologies ethically and with accountability. Within a developing landscape where new AI tools emerge frequently and where AI capabilities are added to existing applications, KU IT and Procurement teams review these tools to establish guidelines for usage for students, faculty, staff, and researchers.
All users should verify that they are logged in with their university credentials if they intend to enter any sensitive data into an approved AI tool.
This enhanced security is one of the key reasons Copilot is the approved generative AI tool for use across campus. However, please note that Copilot should not be used with highly sensitive data, including Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
GenAI tools should be used in accordance with applicable data protection laws and existing University policy. This includes but is not limited to student data protected by FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), medical data protected by HIPAA (the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), and data protected by the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).
- The university describes an AI Taskforce that provides strategic guidance, oversight, and support for AI use across academics, administration, and research
- It states the taskforce will evaluate alignment of AI initiatives with strategic plans and will assess/propose resources, advise educators and administrators, support researchers, and create relevant policies, including developing strategy and approving frameworks for AI risk management
The purpose of the KU AI Taskforce is to provide strategic guidance, oversight, and support for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in academics, university administration, and research at the University of Kansas.
The taskforce represents diverse stakeholders and will evaluate the alignment of AI initiatives with the strategic plans of the KU Lawrence and the University of Kansas Medical Center. The taskforce will also assess and propose appropriate resources, advise and engage educators and administrators, support researchers, and create relevant policies.
To develop a strategy for the use of AI in academics, administration, and research.
To approve frameworks that ensure AI risks are identified and addressed.
To develop policies, processes, practices, and standards for using AI and data.
DocuMark: Responsible AI Use for Academic Integrity
Knowing your institution's AI policy is step one. DocuMark helps enforce it fairly by empowering universities to manage AI-generated content, prevent cheating, and support student writing through responsible AI use.
Common Questions About University of Kansas's AI Policies
University of Kansas has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
The university guidance recommends disclosure when research content has been created using generative AI tools. For teaching and learning, it directs students to comply with their instructor’s generative AI syllabus policy, and it frames submission of unedited chatbot-created work as academic misconduct.
The provided sources define academic misconduct broadly (including misrepresenting the source of academic work and unauthorized aid), but they do not define an AI-specific detection approach or enforcement mechanism (e.g., use of AI detectors) for generative AI. AI detection tools and AI-specific penalties/procedures are not defined in the provided materials.
KU IT lists approved AI tools and states that KU IT and Procurement teams review AI tools to establish guidelines for use for students, faculty, staff, and researchers. It instructs users to be logged in with university credentials if entering sensitive data into an approved AI tool, and states that Microsoft Copilot is the approved generative AI tool for use across campus but should not be used with highly sensitive data (including CUI). The university guidance also states AI tools should be used in accordance with applicable data protection laws and existing university policy, including FERPA and HIPAA.